FANDOM


       
Good article
nominations
             
Premium-GoodIcon

This page is for the nomination of Good articles. A Good article is an article that adheres to certain quality standards but cannot reach Featured status due to its limited content. This page is not a way to showcase the articles of your favorite characters, spaceships, or the like. For a list of Good articles, see Wookieepedia:Good articles.

READ THIS FIRST!

An article must…

  1. …be well-written and comprehensively detailed.
  2. …be unbiased, non-point of view.
  3. …have comprehensive Appearances and Sources lists.
  4. …be fully referenced, including all quotes and images. See Wookieepedia:Sourcing for more information.
  5. …follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on Wookieepedia.
  6. …following the review process, be stable, i.e., does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.
  7. …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
  8. …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic if the length of the article supports it. This may not be appropriate on articles with limited content.
  9. …have no redlinks.
  10. …provide at least one quote on the article if available. A leading quote at the beginning of the article would be preferred, though not required if no quotes are available. Although quotes may be placed in the body of the article, a maximum of one quote is allowed at the beginning of each section.
  11. …ideally include a "Personality and traits" section on all character articles if information is available.
  12. …ideally include a "Powers and abilities" section for Force-sensitive characters and a "Skills and abilities" section for non–Force-sensitive characters, where said powers and/or abilities are stipulated.
  13. …include a "Behind the scenes" section for in-universe articles.
  14. …include a reasonable number of images of the highest quality to illustrate the article, as source availability permits.
  15. …counting the introduction and "Behind the scenes" material, be at least 250 words long (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc). Alternatively, a Good article cannot exceed 1000 words. Articles that do so should be nominated for Featured status.
  16. …be properly titled in accordance with Wookieepedia's treatment of Canon and Legends articles; i.e., no nomination may have "/Canon" in the title.

How to nominate:

  1. First, select an article you feel is worthy of Good article status. Your nominated article must meet all sixteen requirements listed above to become a Good article.
  2. Add {{GAnom}} at the top of the article you are nominating and save the page. NOTE: If the article you are nominating has been nominated for Good article status previously, you will need to specify a new subpage name as a parameter in the template (e.g. {{GAnom|Lorum ipsum (second nomination)}}).
  3. Open the redlink (in a new tab or window, if possible) and fill out the form according to the instructions provided.
  4. Copy the code provided to the bottom of this page.
  5. Purge the article to update the template.
  6. Per AgriCorps consensus, non-AgriCorps members are restricted to four nominations on the GAN page at any one time. Once one nomination is removed from the page as either successful or unsuccessful, another may be added.
  7. Users may not vote on their own articles.

How to vote:

  1. Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
  2. Afterward, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination.
    • If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.
  3. Any objections may be looked upon by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to please the objectors. Do not strike other users' objections; it is up to the objector to review the changes and strike if they are satisfied.
  4. Once a nomination has a total of five votes, with at least three votes coming from AgriCorps or Inquisitorius members—two of which must be AgriCorps votes—after at least a week since it was nominated (beginning the day of its nomination) and no objections (or the objections have been stricken or overridden), the article will be considered a "Good article" and tagged with the {{Eras|good}} template. The talk page will also be tagged with the {{GA}} template. Alternatively, if a nomination receives a total of five AgriCorps/Inquisitorius votes—three of which must be AgriCorps votes—with no outstanding objections before one week has passed, the nomination will be considered successful.
  5. The article is placed on the Good article list.


All nominations will be considered idle and are subject to removal by AgriCorps vote if objections are not addressed after a period of 10 days.

Note: All Reduxed articles require only three support votes to maintain their Good status, all of which must come from AgriCorps members. Reduxed articles will be subject to removal if objections are not addressed after a period of two weeks, pending the support of at least three AgriCorps members.


Good article nominations

To nominate an article for Good article status, place the {{GAnom}} template on the top of the article and then follow the instructions above. Nominated articles must meet all sixteen requirements stated above. If an article has a total of five votes, with at least three votes coming from AgriCorps or Inquisitorius members—two of which must be an AgriCorps vote—after at least a week since it was nominated (beginning the day of its nomination) and no objections (or the objections have been stricken or overridden), the article will be considered a "Good article" and tagged with the {{Eras|good}} template. The talk page will also be tagged with the {{GA}} template. For complete instructions on archiving nominations, please see here.

View recent changes for this page and its subpages

Garth Breise

  • Nominated by: OtterSurf (talk) 12:32, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Let's do it this time!

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 07:14, July 16, 2019 (UTC)

Object

Toprawa
  • My objection from 00:24, February 20, 2019 still stands. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:02, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
    • Don't worry, I checked it out and it was Danni. OtterSurf (talk) 16:29, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
      • Your word is no longer good enough. I'm going to repeat this passage from my February 20 objection: You're going to need to quote for me whatever passage from the book this is coming from so I can be assured it's accurate with respect to Garth Breise. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:35, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
      • I should clarify also that I want to see page and/or chapter numbers here so this can be verified. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:42, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
        • Page 24. It's actually stated from no particular viewpoint and I need to amend the article accordingly. Sorry, my mistake. OtterSurf (talk) 17:50, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
          • This is the last time I'm going to say this: Show me the exact passage. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:55, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
            • I had just finished writing it when you edited! Blast it. Here it is again: "The others of the station thought it was simply "newbie" excitement, the feeling they had all shared when they first arrived that the extragalactic signal could happen at any time". There you go. OtterSurf (talk) 18:04, June 22, 2019 (UTC)
            • Here's the link as well: [1]OtterSurf (talk) 07:42, June 24, 2019 (UTC)
Anil
  • Breise seems important to Yomin Carr's history. Have you checked the Sources of the latter's article for possible mentions of Breise? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 01:01, June 28, 2019 (UTC)
    • Yep. No other mentions. OtterSurf (talk) 07:52, June 28, 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you please show me the exact passage from The Essential Reader's Companion that includes the indirect mention of Breise, as suggested in the Sources? I can't seem to find it myself. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 00:18, July 3, 2019 (UTC)
    • That was added before I started editing the article. If there is no indirect mention you can find, I'll remove the source. OtterSurf (talk) 08:45, July 3, 2019 (UTC)
      • Even if it was there before you started editing the article, you should have checked all the sources if you are going to nominate an article. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:27, July 3, 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't there anything more to add to the article from The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia? As far as I can see, there are at least two entries that mention Breise. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:27, July 3, 2019 (UTC)
    • Nope. The CUSWE says even less than what's here already. OtterSurf (talk) 08:30, July 4, 2019 (UTC)
QGJ
  • The section "A dark discovery" is full of compound sentences connected by —. Can you vary your sentence structure a bit here?
  • According to his description in the articles, he also belongs in Category:Engineers
  • P&T Most individuals are continuously referred to by full names. This is unneccessary, since you've already introduced them. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 14:17, July 15, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

R4-K5

  • Nominated by: OtterSurf (talk) 18:19, July 17, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Been meaning to promote this little guy for a while now.

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 10:08, July 29, 2019 (UTC)

Object

QGJ
  • Is there a way to get a wider crop of the infobox image, so that it fully fits the infobox?
    • I never really liked that image quite frankly. It looks shabby. There's a few images on the Hasbro site that would do a better job so I might upload a new one. OtterSurf (talk) 11:25, July 18, 2019 (UTC)
    • Found a new image. Does the job. OtterSurf (talk) 13:09, July 18, 2019 (UTC)
  • 19 BBY date in the first sentence cannot be sourced directly to Revenge of the Sith
    • The Knightfall article does just that, so I'd be willing to contest it. OtterSurf (talk) 11:23, July 18, 2019 (UTC)
      • The Knightfall article also gained its status in 2010, when our standards for referencing dates were not as strict. I'm sure it will eventually be probed by the AC, one of the reasons being the lack of proper date refs. It's just simple fact that the term "19 BBY" is never used in the film itself, therefore, according to current GA standards, it requires an external source. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 14:32, July 18, 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't have to pipelink this entire passage to Operation: Knightfall. Just linking the word "ransacked" would be sufficient. "ransacked the Jedi Temple and killed most of the Jedi in residence"
  • You have successive duplicate refs [2] in the first paragraph of the bio, and refs [1] in the second paragraph.
    • Fixed. Ref 2 is now Ref 3. I broke up the two uses but I don't think I can structure the paragraph properly without using it twice. OtterSurf (talk) 11:22, July 18, 2019 (UTC)
    • Ref 3 is now Ref 4. OtterSurf (talk) 14:35, July 18, 2019 (UTC)
  • You are missing info from the databank entry, such as manufacturer and height. Using external sources, you can perhaps fill out additional parameters in the infobox, for example, the droid's degree. Please look at other Legends astromech GAs, for example R3-T2
  • Overall, the bio seems to be written from Vader's POV, instead of the droid's. For instance, the first paragraph should first establish that R4-K5 was stationed at the Jedi Temple in 19 BBY, before talking about Vader's attack. This sentence: "Vader would later choose the R4 unit as his new astromech" is better reworded to passive voice: "The R4 unit was later chosen by Vader as his new astromech"
  • Characteristics section needs to be added.
  • Please add publishing dates in the Bts. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 07:32, July 18, 2019 (UTC)
  • Sensor color is now infobox-exclusive.
  • The databank entry does not state this anywhere. Therefore, this part needs a manual ref note, mentioning other source(s) from which this info is drawn. As with other R4-numbered astromechs used by the Jedi Order during the Clone Wars, R4-K5 featured an R2-series dome
    • I'll look for a definitive source. 'Til then, I'll just remove it. OtterSurf (talk) 10:21, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. OtterSurf (talk) 18:26, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
  • Non-canon information from Star Wars: Visions of the Blade needs to be detailed in the Bts. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 09:27, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. OtterSurf (talk) 10:21, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
      • "Detailed" means that his role in the story needs to be described with the same level of detail that you would do for a biography, with the only exception being that it should be in present tense. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 14:57, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
        • R4-K5 appears in one frame of the comic. OtterSurf (talk) 17:11, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
          • You can still describe his role in the story from that one frame. R4-K5 appears in the non-canon comic Star Wars: Visions of the Blade, where he accompanies Vader during yadayadayada... QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 07:15, July 22, 2019 (UTC)
  • This sentence is unneccessary, as it just repeats info from the "appearances" list. R4-K5 also featured in the fourth installment of the 2014 comic arc Star Wars: Darth Vader and the Cry of Shadows.
  • Speaking about the "Cry of Shadows," you can definetely expand upon the details of the battle a bit.
  • 17 BBY date cannot be sourced directly to that comic and needs an additional source.
    • There isn't one. OtterSurf (talk) 09:57, July 24, 2019 (UTC)
    • The comic dates the Shrouded Offensive to a few months after Revenge of the Sith. I've noted it as 'months later', after Knightfall and Murkhana. OtterSurf (talk) 10:36, July 24, 2019 (UTC)
  • This image is of very poor quality. It's very pixelated and there are visible scanning artifacts present. This either needs to be replaced with a better version, or a different image altogether. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 08:50, July 24, 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:LG, External links is placed at the very end, after "Notes and references" QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 08:52, July 24, 2019 (UTC)
  • With the article now being sufficiently expanded, it now feels really weird not having any quotes at all. You can at least add the relevant author narration from "Dark Lord" describing "the black astromech" to the Bts. If you use some creativity, you can perhaps find relevant quotes for the in-universe portion of the article, even if there are none available that directly mention the droid. For example, we know that Vader chose R4-K5 to complement his own dark nature. Maybe add something about Vader reflecting on his own darkness and whip up a caption that ties this quote to the astromech. If you can't find anything, fine, but I encourage you to try. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 18:29, July 27, 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added some quotes. Vader never talks directly to R4-K5, so that's one major obstacle, but I've used ones that are most relevant. I doubt I'll be able to find anything else. OtterSurf (talk) 08:42, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
Anil
  • Category:Galactic Republic individuals and Category:Droids of the Galactic Empire should be added.
  • Why is Category:R4-series agromech droids added to the article and not mentioned in the article body? Are you sure it's an R4 unit?
  • Sources must be listed in order of publication/release date.
    • Fixed. OtterSurf (talk) 08:24, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't. Per the Layout Guide, "original Databank entries are to be listed as if their publication date was September 12, 2011 (the last day the Databank was online)." TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 03:57, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
        • Done. OtterSurf (talk) 08:39, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
          • As both Hasbro figures were released in 2006, I'd like you to show me a source/link for how you figured out which one of them was released first. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 10:52, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
            • According to Amazon, the fighter was released in late 2006: see here. Furthermore, according to this source, the figure was released in January 2007. OtterSurf (talk) 11:08, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedia entries must be presented exactly as the entry title does, such as "Sith starfighter, Darth Vader's."
    • The 19 BBY info came from a timeline on one of the intro pages, not an entry per se. OtterSurf (talk) 08:27, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
    • I've gone with the New Essential Chronology. OtterSurf (talk) 09:17, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
      • I have no idea what you are talking about here. My objection is about the formatting of the name of the old Databank entries, namely "Sith starfighter, Darth Vader's." TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 03:57, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
        • Oh, thought you meant the CSWE. Anyway, done. OtterSurf (talk) 08:40, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it would be much easier to source that 19 BBY date directly to The New Essential Chronology.
    • If you're not happy with the explanation above, then that's cool. OtterSurf (talk) 08:27, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, done. OtterSurf (talk) 09:16, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
  • If The New Essential Chronology is where the droid was first pictured, {{1stp}} should be added.
  • The article could use one or two more images.
  • Darth Vader's black Eta-2 Actis-class interceptor lists more Appearances and Sources that this article. Have you checked them all for a possible appearance of the droid? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 05:47, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
    • Added another appearance. That's pretty much it, though. OtterSurf (talk) 08:50, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
      • Are you sure about that? I only looked at the Hasbro link on that article, and again, are you sure that black astromech aboard Vader's starfighter isn't R4-K5? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 03:57, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
        • It would be. I'll add it to the BTS. OtterSurf (talk) 09:00, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
          • Also, do you have an image of Vader's Sith fighter from Star Wars Galaxies? I didn't manage to find it myself, but as you told me that you've checked all the sources, I thought you might have one. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 12:22, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
            • I can't find any footage or pictures from Galaxies. Since it's not online anymore, and there's nothing I can find, I'd suggest we leave it. OtterSurf (talk) 16:24, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
            • Want proof? This is all I could find, and it might not even be Vader's interceptor. At any rate, the astromech isn't even shown. OtterSurf (talk) 12:13, July 22, 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe Vader's astromech in Darth Vader and the Lost Command 2 isn't detailed enough to decide if it's R4-K5 or not. I think you can mention this in BTS. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 12:22, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • Darth Vader's Sith starfighter's old Databank entry states that there was another Sith fighter toy, as part of the Star Wars Transformers toyline. Did you check it for a possible appearance of R4-K5?
    • Done. OtterSurf (talk) 19:05, July 31, 2019 (UTC)
      • You don't need to add that to BTS. You just need to add it to the Sources if the droid is present in that toy. Also, please use {{HasbroCite}} if it's part of a Hasbro toyline. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 00:17, August 1, 2019 (UTC)
        • It doesn't appear in the Hasbro database, so I had to use a third-party site. OtterSurf (talk) 08:29, August 1, 2019 (UTC)
          • You can incorporate external links into the Hasbro template the way I just did. Though you'll have to fill in the redlink for the toy set. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 14:53, August 1, 2019 (UTC)
            • Done. OtterSurf (talk) 17:44, August 1, 2019 (UTC)
              • Are you sure about its placement in the Sources, and that it was released after The Saga Collection one? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 01:33, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
                • The release date only says 2006, and it would make sense for it to be released shortly after the original interceptor. OtterSurf (talk) 08:21, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you could expand the intro a bit, it's quite short compared to the body right now. Maybe mentioning the events the droid participated in, and its relationship with Vader. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 15:47, July 29, 2019 (UTC)
  • "James Luceno describing R4-K5 in Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader." When I've first read this, I thought there is an out-of-universe section of the book where Luceno talks about the droid. But I now see that it's actually within the story, so I think I would suggest to change that caption to something like "An excerpt from Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader describing R4-K5."
  • I'd like to see Battle of Murkhana/Legends pipelinked somewhere in the article.
  • Could you please give time frames for the Battle of Murkhana and Shrouded Offensive, BBY dates if possible? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:01, August 4, 2019 (UTC)
    • They all take place in 19 BBY. Dark Lord takes place shortly after EPIII and Cry of Shadows is set several months after. Both sources mention this. OtterSurf (talk) 21:08, August 4, 2019 (UTC)
      • Then could you add something like "not long after" or "within the same year" at the beginning of the Murkhana paragraph. And about Shrouded Offensive, are you sure about that? Its own article says it took place in 17 BBY. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:15, August 4, 2019 (UTC)
        • That's incorrect. The graphic novel states outright that it happens several months after ROTS. OtterSurf (talk) 21:17, August 4, 2019 (UTC)
        • Done. It's said from the POV of Shryne that Vader arrives at Murkhana about two weeks after the signal from the Temple is received. OtterSurf (talk) 21:20, August 4, 2019 (UTC)
  • Although it's a non-canonical event, you could also pipelink Battle of the Cowl Crucible and give a time frame for it.
    • Done. OtterSurf (talk) 07:32, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
      • Can 3 BBY be directly sourced to the comic itself? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:33, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
        • No. It's not stated anywhere in the graphic novel and I can't find a source to back it up. Removed. OtterSurf (talk) 11:18, August 6, 2019 (UTC)
  • (Reviewing note) All images must have non-capitalized extensions, i.e. Vader's_astromech_R4-K5.jpg instead of Vader's_astromech_R4-K5.JPG. Also, all file names must have underscores (_) instead of spaces. I have taken care of these, but please keep these in mind for your future nominations. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:10, August 4, 2019 (UTC)
  • There are multiple infobox-exclusive information, which should also be mentioned in the article body. Please revise.
    • Done. OtterSurf (talk) 07:36, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
      • Galactic Republic is still infobox-exclusive. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:33, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
        • Fixed. OtterSurf (talk) 08:30, August 6, 2019 (UTC)
          • I am afraid not. The article should suggest that R4-K5 served/was affiliated with the Republic. It only says that the droid served during the final days of the Republic. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 00:56, August 7, 2019 (UTC)
  • Does The New Essential Guide to Droids explicitly say that R4-K5 was an R4-P-series astromech droid? If so, the book should be added to the Sources as well. If not, it looks like a speculation to me. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 01:41, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
    • No, but the EGD does state that the Jedi Order used R4 units with R2 domes after R4-P17 was a success. OtterSurf (talk) 07:26, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
      • I may be missing it, but on page 31, it only says that they were rebuilt with dome-heads, not necessarily R2 domes, even though they are visually the same. Also, the R4 unit must be linked in the article, the R4 unit info must be added to the infobox and the categories as well. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:33, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
        • Done. OtterSurf (talk) 08:35, August 6, 2019 (UTC)
          • Please remember to remove redundant categories after adding a new one, which is already a subcategory of existing categories. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 00:56, August 7, 2019 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Some preliminaries:
    • The infobox image doesn't need to be any larger than 400x400 px. Otherwise it's just making the droid look smaller in the template. I would suggest asking Culator to crop it down for you.
    • The infobox image also needs to be referenced correctly, which includes adding an archive link.
      • Will do. OtterSurf (talk) 08:36, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
      • How do I do that exactly? OtterSurf (talk) 09:02, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
        • You need to use the {{Cite web}} template. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:39, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
          • In Sources, References, or the image page itself? OtterSurf (talk) 18:44, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
            • Images are sourced on the file pages themselves. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:45, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
              • Wookieepedia seems to be having a problem. Whenever I try to save the page I'm getting a 500 error message. OtterSurf (talk) 19:06, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
                • You're running into an ongoing Wikia error. You will not be able to adjust the sourcing in this image file, which is one reason why it's important to source images correctly upon initial upload. You should compile your Cite web template on a subpage and show it to Culator. He can then use it to upload the new cropped version of this file. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:21, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
                  • I've never done that before. How would I go about it? OtterSurf (talk) 19:30, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
                    • I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I'm not going to hold your hand through every step of the process. You need to learn how to do some things yourself. All of the instructions for how to use the Cite web template are on the template page, which I have linked for you. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:33, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
                      • For the record, I was referring to creating a subpage, not the Cite web template which I am familiar with. OtterSurf (talk) 19:41, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
                        • You can create your subpage at "User:OtterSurf/Subpage" or whatever you want to call it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:46, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
                          • Great. Thanks. OtterSurf (talk) 19:51, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
                          • Done. Hopefully we'll hear from him soon. OtterSurf (talk) 19:59, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
    • A four-paragraph Bio is always ripe for subsectioning. Two subsections of two paragraphs each looks much neater. This will allow for an additional quote if available. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:18, August 16, 2019 (UTC)
      • There are no quotes, but I'll compress them down. OtterSurf (talk) 08:36, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
      • Done. OtterSurf (talk) 08:46, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
  • The Biography quote doesn't appear to have any direct relevance to R4-K5. I suggest removing it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:15, August 18, 2019 (UTC)
  • According to the links you're using in the article, the three Hasbro toys were released, in the order you have them listed in the Sources list, in 2006, December 2006, and 2006. So what is your rationale for listing them in the order you have? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:09, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
    • I haven't been able to get a definitive release schedule from various sites listing the products, most of which use conflicting dates, so I've used my best judgment. OtterSurf (talk) 20:12, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
      • Have you checked Jedi Temple Archives? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:18, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
        • Yup. It lists the Eta-2 as a 2007 release, so that's one mystery down. It still lists R4-K5 as 2006 and has no entry for the Transformer. OtterSurf (talk) 20:22, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
          • No, you hadn't checked Jedi Temple Archives. Otherwise you would have had it listed correctly in the first place. You have a really bad habit of saying you've checked sources when truthfully you didn't. You need to work on that. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:27, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
            • Think I chose my words badly there. Instead of "Yup", I should've written "I just have". OtterSurf (talk) 20:53, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
  • There isn't any real connection to R4-K5 here other than the indirect suggestion that he served a Jedi pilot and that the Jedi hangar, where pilots sometimes are, was destroyed. I would suggest removing this: "The Temple's hangar was one of the areas raided, and much of its equipment was destroyed." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:59, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. Logical, since R4-K5 never appears in the game. OtterSurf (talk) 21:04, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
  • Additional image issues:
    • The second Bio image is cropped weird, and its artificial black background isn't done very well at all. If you actually open up the image at full resolution, you can see where the original uploader missed a white dot near the top left and also where the black is poorly brushed in at the bottom left corner. I would suggest asking Culator again to go to the original source for that image and see if he can produce a better version for us. As a secondary issue to this image, it also needs to be sourced correctly with a backup link. All images must be fully sourced, per GAN rule 4. This is your responsibility to check this for any image you're using in your nominated article.
      • Again, I'll ask him. OtterSurf (talk) 11:37, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
      • If Culator hasn't got back to me soon, I'm thinking we should just remove the image, as it's making the article look scruffy. OtterSurf (talk) 11:05, August 25, 2019 (UTC)
        • There's really no getting around this. Ultimately, that section of the article needs to have an image for basic aesthetic value. And I don't see any other image from the sources that could really go there, though you're welcome to suggest alternatives. The image that's there now isn't bad by any means, its quality is just lacking because the uploader did a poor job. The technical requirements to clean it up are pretty basic. It just takes someone with the time and ability to do so. You're welcome to try yourself, though I recommend Culator since he's the best at this kind of stuff. You can try reminding him that you need his assistance. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:02, August 26, 2019 (UTC)
          • I've dropped Culator a quick reminder. OtterSurf (talk) 13:30, August 28, 2019 (UTC)
            • Then I'm just going to add that the impetus is on you to follow up on this objection in the allotted time. It's not Culator's responsibility to respond to you or mine or the AgriCorps' to make sure you're resolving it. If we don't get another update from you on this by September 7 (the allotted 10 days), this nomination will be eligible for inactive removal. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:55, August 30, 2019 (UTC)
            • Realistically, I can't make it much better. It's a Rebelscum original photo of an action figure box that's 13 years old, which is ancient in Internet terms. I'd really rather not put that much effort into a file that's so low-quality to begin with. You might want to pick a different image from the source. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:31, August 30, 2019 (UTC)
            • Never mind. Felt like playing with a new toy and you get to reap the benefits. :P -- Darth Culator (Talk) 00:46, August 31, 2019 (UTC)
              • Wonderful job, Culator! Thanks again. OtterSurf (talk) 12:24, August 31, 2019 (UTC)
    • Since the URL for the BTS image is no longer working and there doesn't appear to be an archived version of that page, I would recommend finding another image from an active webpage. Jedi Temple Archives offers plenty of solid alternatives. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:18, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • Infobox things:
    • The infobox is sourcing the droid's R4-series designation to the Saga Collection toy, but nothing on that card actually states this droid is an R4 model. You're presumably just going off the name of the droid. Do none of the other sources explicitly identify R4-K5 as an R4-series astromech droid?
      • Nope. I've removed it. See Anil's objections, though. OtterSurf (talk) 18:28, September 10, 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't know what you did, but you still have the category, and you haven't removed it from the article body either. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:37, September 10, 2019 (UTC)
          • Cock. I had previously removed it, but I accidentally scrubbed a Hasbro source and had to revert to a previous edit. It got left behind, but I have removed it now. OtterSurf (talk) 19:17, September 10, 2019 (UTC)
    • Given a choice between the Databank and the Saga Collection, I think it would be best to source everything possible to the Databank. R4-K5's sensor color is red, not black. And this can be sourced to the Databank.
      • Done what I can. OtterSurf (talk) 18:28, September 10, 2019 (UTC)
        • The Databank explicitly says he was affiliated with the Galactic Empire. It also refers to his service to the "Sith" starfighter. I doubt Dark Lord says these things, even if the context would be obvious. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:51, September 10, 2019 (UTC)
    • The droid has multiple plating colors, not just black.
    • Nothing from the Saga Collection says R4-K5 served the Jedi Order or the Galactic Republic. It simply says he was a "Jedi's droid." We know there are Jedi who live outside the purview of the Order and the Republic, so this would certainly be some unsupported extrapolation. I think it would be best to just list "Jedi" in the affiliation field while removing Galactic Republic. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:53, September 10, 2019 (UTC)
      • Done. OtterSurf (talk) 18:28, September 10, 2019 (UTC)
      • Now that I think about the first History section, there's no real evidence that 'Kayfive was even stationed at the Temple; I simply extrapolated. Should I take the wrecking ball to it? OtterSurf (talk) 18:33, September 10, 2019 (UTC)
      • Nevermind, it's been demolished and remodelled. OtterSurf (talk) 19:19, September 10, 2019 (UTC)
        • I asked you to list "Jedi" in the affiliations, not "A Jedi," even though that's what the source says. Because otherwise you're creating something of an incongruity here. If you're listing "A Jedi," why not list "Darth Vader," for example? If he's serving "a Jedi," he's still serving "the Jedi," if that makes sense, so I think it's best to just stick with "Jedi" to remain uniform with Order of the Sith Lords and Galactic Empire. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:49, September 10, 2019 (UTC)
  • Where is R4-K5 mentioned in the Sith starfighter Databank entry? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:40, September 10, 2019 (UTC)
    • No mention. Removed. OtterSurf (talk) 07:57, September 11, 2019 (UTC)
      • It does appear in the entry's image of the Sith starfighter, so the source should be restored with a Po. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 08:06, September 11, 2019 (UTC)
        • Tch. Completely went over my head. Done. OtterSurf (talk) 08:12, September 11, 2019 (UTC)
  • From the intro: "R4-K5 was an astromech droid originally assigned to a Jedi during the Clone Wars." No where does the text on the Saga Collection card support any part of this sentence. It merely says that R4-K5 "used to be a Jedi's droid," which could mean a lot of things. You will need to rewrite the intro and article body to avoid this extrapolation. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:06, September 16, 2019 (UTC)
Imp
  • Please implement {{Imagecat}}. Imperators II(Talk) 07:24, August 21, 2019 (UTC)
    • What's that? OtterSurf (talk) 09:20, August 21, 2019 (UTC)
      • It's a template for linking to an image category (which you should also create). Instructions for the template's usage are on its page. Imperators II(Talk) 09:31, August 21, 2019 (UTC)
        • Okay, but I'm still not clear on how it works. What information, for example, should I put in the template if, say, I placed it on the image page for the comic panel in this article? OtterSurf (talk) 10:04, August 21, 2019 (UTC)
        • Nevermind, figured it out. OtterSurf (talk) 10:08, August 21, 2019 (UTC)
          • Cool, just remember that when you create a category, you also have to add category(-ies) at the bottom of that category. Imperators II(Talk) 10:19, August 21, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Battle of T'olan

  • Nominated by: NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 10:10, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: This nomination was removed improperly. See comments for more details, or don't.

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Nice work. Imperators II(Talk) 09:28, August 26, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Apologies if my derpiness caused the misunderstanding. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 12:56, August 26, 2019 (UTC)
    • It's K! It's not your fault I got heated. ^^ NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 15:45, August 26, 2019 (UTC)

Object

Ecks Dee
  • I really feel like you should mention Kenobi's and Flume's dialogue in the Aftermath. You could probably remove "and Jedi General Obi-Wan Kenobi was aware of its reputation." from The battle and discuss that in the Aftermath instead. 1358 (Talk) 10:21, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
Anil
  • Could you please point me out the section of the novel that states the battle of T'olan was fought against the Confederacy? Just because a battle took place during the Clone Wars doesn't mean it was fought between the Republic and the Confederacy. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:18, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
    • You're right. Restricted their mention to context of the war and removed from the infobox. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 20:55, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
Imp
  • "Years had passed since the battle of T'olan, and Kenobi recalled its deadly reputation" — wouldn't a contrasting conjuncting like "yet" or something to that effect be more at home here?
  • What does the fact that the clones' genetic template was Fett have to with the subject of this article? We only need to know that the clone troopers were male and therefore Flume's mother couldn't have been one.
    • Because it unambiguously explains why they were all male. Yes, in a strictly minimalist sense, the fact that the one template was Fett, specifically, is not necessary for a complete explanation of why she could not have joined the GAR. However, "Those clones were all men sourced from one man, Fett" is complete and not ambiguous, while "Those clones were all men" is complete, but could imply that the GAR was excluding women for sexist reasons. Perhaps they were, but I'd prefer the explanation that doesn't rely on treating "all of them were cloned from Fett" as common knowledge to eschew that interpretation. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 15:10, August 22, 2019 (UTC)
  • You should probably wedge Jedi Commander somewhere in that paragraph, as well.
  • The Warfare sentence also specifies that GAR's infantry was made up of clones. What about pilots and/or other branches? Imperators II(Talk) 19:49, August 21, 2019 (UTC)
    • I incorporated that with "Nonetheless, there were non-clone branches of the Military fighting for the Republic, such as the Planetary Security Forces or the Judicials." The GAR was the infantry. The Navy was a separate branch of the Republic Military, and I could have included it in that list, but there is a section of Warfare that addresses this directly with these examples, so the sourcing could be more direct this way. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:56, August 24, 2019 (UTC)
      • I was thinking more along the lines of the clone troopers who, say, piloted the LAATs or the Torrent fighters. Imperators II(Talk) 16:41, August 24, 2019 (UTC)
        • It seems like there was no separate Air Force for ground missions? Warfare calls the LAAT "the iconic vehicle of the Grand Army" and says they cannot escape the atmosphere if launched on a planet, p. 80. The Torrent fighter article claims that the TCW film says that they're part of the Navy, which I can't imagine is correct sourcing because why would the movie say that? There was a Republic Starfighter Corps, but it was also a different branch of the Republic Military, separate from both the Grand Army and the Navy, per Warfare p. 95. Anyway, I've removed "infantry" from the sentence in this article because it was redundant. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 18:31, August 25, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • Yes, I am renominating immediately. I find this situation very disappointing. I pushed back slightly on objections from an AgriCorps member and those sat for days open for commentary from others, but a motion from that same AgriCorps member to remove the nomination based on an objection from someone else who supported the article got voted through within 10 minutes? Seriously? I am not trying to be difficult, but this is the sort of scenario that makes contributing to Wookieepedia feel bad. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 10:10, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
    • Your nomination was not removed due to Anil's outstanding objection (which indeed doesn't count as "unaddressed" since you're contesting it), but rather QGJ's objection, which was left unanswered since July 15 (two more days than the standard 10-day idle period). Nominators are expected to keep track of unstruck objections, regardless of QGJ supporting or not. How is the AC expected to know the objection is satisfied and not ignored? 1358 (Talk) 10:15, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
      • I realize it was about QGJ's objection. That objection was addressed and QGJ supported the article. If the person supported the article, then something strange must have happened and it should be looked into for more than ten minutes. Perhaps a question asked. Anil's minor (and I stress minor) conflict of interest should have been cause for some pause. If the situation will not even be read on its face and the other two votes are done automatically, then why are they even required? I am not asking for some major change to your protocol. I am just pointing out that the situation was not properly considered. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 10:29, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
      • But, to be clear, I'm not trying to start a fight. It's just a frustrating situation and I needed to express that. I have, so now I'm satisfied. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 10:33, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
    • As I'm the person in question here, I feel like I'm obligated to respond. Before removing an unsuccessful nomination, we ACs usually discuss it on IRC, then act accordingly. So, there are no two other automatic votes as speculated here, no member of an article reviewing body follows/accepts another's opinion blindly. It is just a coincidence that I was the one who noticed an over-10-days-old unadressed objection and brought it to AgriCorps' attention. As ACs have multiple nominations that require reviewing, never mind other duties, we leave keeping track of unstruck objections completely to the nominator. Anyways, multiple mentions of my objection from the previous nomination above—which clearly has nothing to do with the current situation—imply an accusation of a personal attack or something, which is unfortunate and disturbing. In order to not prolong this dispute, I will not respond to further statements. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 13:54, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
      • You made a mistake that upset me. You can dress that up however you like, but it happened and I forgive you for it. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 19:16, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
  • Just so you know, it is not the AC's job to ask QGJ why his objection wasn't struck. That's the nominator's job. We do not keep track of objections. It was indeed your responsibility to ask him why he did not strike his objection, and you had 12 days to do it. This is your nomination and yours alone. And renominating it isn't difficult, so I'm not sure why there is a big fuss. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 20:57, August 1, 2019 (UTC)
    • If you don't understand why it's frustrating to monitor this closely for weeks to respond promptly, only for it to be removed in 10 minutes because of a technicality completely outside my control with obvious signs something was amiss, then I don't know what to tell you, Fred. But, from my perspective, I won't bottle myself up and pretend to feel nothing when I feel I've been wronged and I will express that. I encourage other people to do the same. I'm not a fan of the "personal attack" framing Anil chose, personally, but I understand that it's a Wookieepedia trope and I get what he meant. If this conversation had taken place on IRC, it would be over, it may have read less (or more) severely, and any background political fallout from it would linger undocumented like when we were kids. I'm just not into that anymore and the site isn't just for people who join IRC. Anyway, I'm over it. If you and others feel I went too far, fine, but I don't hold a grudge against anybody and it's not a big fuss anymore. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 01:46, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
      • I had a nomination not long ago removed because I slipped up ever so slightly. I just renominated because those are the rules. It's not hard. You had 12 days to ask QGJ about his objection. And it's not hard to get on IRC. If you want to be more connected and communicate more efficiently, you'll join IRC. It's that simple. Nobody is saying you can't be frustrated, but we are saying you can't blame anyone else for it. It's not hard to renominate an article. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 20:50, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
        • It doesn't matter if it was easy if it had to be done for the wrong reasons, but I do not expect to change your mind. "You had 12 days to do this, without prompting, in response to support and it's your fault you didn't because things are too hectic for us with *checks notes* 8 noms" is excessive formalism that will not change my mind. I suggest referees pointing out supporting objectors would be a positive change and that being too busy for cursory consideration is not good. If y'all are really that swamped, maybe you should recruit more non-INQs? That view of IRC is elitist, IMO. If you would like the last word, take it, but this thread has resolved. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 22:45, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
  • As an admin, not an AC, I'm calling this argument to an end. It has moved beyond the nomination and is striding towards violating Wookieepedia:Civility. Keep conversations here to do with the article, all of you, or I'll be forced to intervene further. Thank you. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 23:14, August 5, 2019 (UTC)


Torpedo Sphere

  • Nominated by: Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:58, July 31, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Motivated to try this again, and given how before all I had left to do was to upload an HD picture, I'm looking forward to having this nomination finally pass and addressing any new objections.

(1 ACs/3 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 23:41, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Good work. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 18:47, August 15, 2019 (UTC)
  3. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 09:49, August 28, 2019 (UTC)
  4. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 01:09, September 20, 2019 (UTC)

Object

Naru
  • "…a data archive that contained a non-electronic copy of sensitive information…" Small thing, but the distinction made here by "non-electronic" is unclear to me. Is there a reason for describing this information in terms of something it is not, and should that reason be in the article? NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 22:59, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
    • It provides context to what The Rebel Files are to provide a clear image to the reader. I think that even though it's minor, it's one of the main things that describes what the Files are.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:28, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
      • OK. I think "physical" or "offline" might work better for that purpose, but I leave that up to you. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 23:41, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
Anil
  • As Torpedo Sphere is a battle station, which means armed space station, don't you think {{Space_station}} should be used instead of {{Starship_class}}?
    • It's my understanding that the space station template is for individual space stations, while starship class is for any type of airborne and space-borne vehicle, including space stations. Either way, I feel that the starship class template works better for the article.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 04:07, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I'd like to see subsections for the History section, which would also make room for more quotes if possible.
    • Split history section into two parts. No more quotes that relate are available now--Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:10, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sometime between the years[1] 5 BBY and 0 BBY,[4]…" I think removing ref 1 and slightly expanding ref 4 would be better here. Also, as far as I can see, that report is within the book's 14–17 AFE section. So shouldn't that be "between the years 5 BBY and 2 BBY"?
  • "The archive was later unearthed in the ruins of the Tak-Beam complex, a former Alliance base located on the Mid Rim planet of Durkteel, by a construction team employed to build a comm tower[1] in 34 ABY.[6] It made its way to the planetary governor, Vaxvissh Kal Ness," I think this section about The Rebek Files is mostly irrelevant to this article. Just saying it was unearthed in 34 ABY and made its way to Leia should suffice, in my opinion.
  • Given the context, do you think Category:Space station classes and Category:Mobile space stations should be added? I'm not so sure about the latter myself, so I'm leaving that up to you.
  • Could you please slightly reword ref 6 so that the note makes it clear that the in-universe The Rebel Files was on the same day as the Battle of Endor according to the real-life book The Rebel Files?
  • I think Torpedo Sphere being considered as a superweapon should be introduced earlier in the article, possibly in the Characteristics section. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 01:22, August 8, 2019 (UTC)
  • One final nitpicking: Could you please give a brief context for the First Order? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 15:26, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

With Hurricane Dorian approaching the coast of Florida, I am anticipating that I will be losing power for several days starting tomorrow, 9/2/2019. Hopefully it's not more than a couple of days. If this hurricane were to go straight it would literally hit where I live. It is the most powerful hurricane in recorded modern history. Thankfully, it looks like it's making a turn north off the coast, but I will still be affected. I will address any standing objections when I can return as soon as I can. Thank you for understanding.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:07, September 1, 2019 (UTC)


Darth Wrend

  • Nominated by: Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:19, August 13, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Became a little too long for a CA during objections

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. Nice work --Lewisr (talk) 23:17, September 1, 2019 (UTC)

Object

Tommy
  • I don't think the last sentence of the history is really relevant to Wrend, ironic as it is. I think it'd be best to remove it.
  • I don't think it's best to lead the history with Wrend's legendary status. It should be in chronological order, so that information should come later. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 16:38, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
  • No quotes?
    • None, unfortunately--Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:46, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
      • After scouring the book even more I managed to find a quote that relates to the article on another part of the novel.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:50, August 27, 2019 (UTC)
        • Okay. That's fine, but we really expect you to finish the article's sources completely before nominating, or else you won't know if you're missing information. Please bear this in mind in future. I hope you've now finished the book? Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 17:10, August 27, 2019 (UTC)
          • That wasn't rhetorical, Vitus.. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 06:19, September 5, 2019 (UTC)
            • Just noticed this, yes I'm finished with the book.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:33, September 9, 2019 (UTC)
  • I think a nice image of Qui-Gon could fit well on the right side of the history section. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 16:40, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
Lewisr
  • Don't you think the holocron of prophecy should have a page?
    • I believe that an article could be made, yes. Though I would need more context for that article (if it has an official name, what makes it unique, etc). I would appreciate any help with that.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:07, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
      • Its explicitly called the holocron of prophecy at least 4 times. I mean if there was a holocron full of Jedi prophecies, with the same holocron appearing in at least two different eras of the book (when Qui-Gon is a Padawan, and then when Obi-Wan is a Padawan), that would be notable would it not? Do you not have the book so you can see for yourself?
        • No, I don't have the novel itself which is why I was asking around before making this nomination if there was any additional info on Wrend--Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:29, August 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • Instead of saying 'during the time when Qui-Gon was the Padawan of Dooku' I'm wondering if you can be more specific. We know he became Dooku's apprentice at 12, the Shenda Mol incident happens when he is 14, therefore you can say between 68 and 66 BBY. --Lewisr (talk) 15:11, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
    • Added ref note. Let me know if the ref note is good or if additional changes/additions need to be made--Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:07, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
      • How do we know it takes place 8 years before TPM? --Lewisr (talk) 14:17, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
        • Rather than asking Matt Martin, I suggest you look at Fanry and work from that --Lewisr (talk) 14:42, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
          • Alright, thanks!--Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:29, August 21, 2019 (UTC)
            • Currently reading the novel. I will address your objections soon!--Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:53, August 21, 2019 (UTC)
              • Done--Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:15, August 30, 2019 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure how relevant the fact the book is 8 years before TPM is in that note, all you need to establish is how we can work out Qui-Gon was 12-14 between 68-66 BBY --Lewisr (talk) 18:36, August 30, 2019 (UTC)
Zed
  • Master & Apprentice doesn't specifically state that Wrend was a Sith Lord, only a Sith. Would that require a reference to explain how the title of "Darth" means Wrend was a Sith Lord?
  • I don't think the BTS needs to specify that Master & Apprentice was canon since Wrend never appeared in Legends content. Zed42 (talk) 20:56, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
    • But Wrend appeared in canon media while Legends media is still being released (although very limited and uncommonly). I don't think it hurts to have canon in the BTS here. If you still feel the same I could remove it though.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:07, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
      • If I may chime in, Zed is right. That's how we have been treating canon article BTSs lately. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:59, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
Anil
  • I think the book also says that those prophecies were made "nearly ten thousand years ago." You can also mention that in the article. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:51, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you please rephrase that image caption? You don't need to specify that the image depicts Qui-Gon Jinn as Jedi Master. You can simply say something like "While a Padawan to Dooku, Qui-Gon Jinn believed…" TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:57, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • (Reviewing note) You should use underscores instead of spaces for file names.
  • First person pronouns should never be used in a reference note, as it's not about "us." Please revise. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:59, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need to specifically say that Wrend "had the moniker of Darth." It's self-explanatory.
    • I added that to satisfy another user's objection I believe, but I also prefer removing it. Done--Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:11, September 4, 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think the first sentence of the second Biography paragraph is relevant to this article. Just saying that the holocron was stored in the Jedi Archives somewhere in the article should suffice.
  • Are you sure that the events of the second Biography paragraph take place "several years" after the ones in the first paragraph? I believe it may be a much longer time period.
    • Ah yes, that was a poor choice of wording. Fixed to "many" if that works--Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:11, September 4, 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you please change the quote attribution to something one sentence? The prophecy is already explained in detail in the article, just give a brief description about the quote. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:11, August 31, 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you please reword the article to make it clear that the prophecy suggested the return of an evil once dead, not the return of the Sith, but most of the notes on the prophecy interpreted it as the potential reincarnation of the Sith Order. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:54, September 4, 2019 (UTC)
  • Rather than repeating the same stuff, I think you can mention Obi-Wan's opinion on the prophecy in the second paragraph of the Biography.
  • Could you make it clear that according to Qui-Gon's interpretation, the prophecy might have already come to pass. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:11, September 10, 2019 (UTC)
  • One last thing: About that chronology note, it only says that Jinn was Dooku's Padawan between 68 BBY and 66 BBY. However, the use of the reference note in the article suggests that Jinn's holocron stuff occured between those years. I think this should be reflected in the note as well. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:39, September 11, 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed--Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:36, September 12, 2019 (UTC)
      • As such, it can be deduced that Jinn was Dooku's Padawan in the years 68 BBY and 66 BBY. I'm afraid it still needs some work. The note's point should be about Jinn opening the holocron, instead of saying that he was the Padawan of Dooku between these two years. Does the novel explicitly say that the conversation about the holocron takes place when Jinn was 12–14 years old? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 16:56, September 12, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

With Hurricane Dorian approaching the coast of Florida, I am anticipating that I will be losing power for several days starting tomorrow, 9/2/2019. Hopefully it's not more than a couple of days. If this hurricane were to go straight it would literally hit where I live. It is the most powerful hurricane in recorded modern history. Thankfully, it looks like it's making a turn north off the coast, but I will still be affected. I will address any standing objections when I can return as soon as I can. Thank you for understanding.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:07, September 1, 2019 (UTC)

  • No worries, thanks for the heads up! Stay safe! --Lewisr (talk) 23:15, September 1, 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm back and it's all good here thankfully!--Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:07, September 4, 2019 (UTC)
    • Good to hear! --Lewisr (talk) 22:10, September 4, 2019 (UTC)


Jac Lodain

  • Nominated by: spookywillowwtalk 10:38, September 6, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: That was fun.

(1 ACs/0 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:11, September 12, 2019 (UTC)

Object

Anil
  • I think you can expand the intro with brief mentions of Jac's parents, or his personality shown during his conversations with Izal Garsea. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 17:30, September 11, 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the article could use an image of Batuu with a proper caption.
  • I have to be honest here. While reading the Biography section, especially its last paragraph, I get some play-by-play-ish vibe. This usually happens when there are multiple successive sentences that simply summarize the dialog: "X told so and so, and Y responded bla bla" Please take a look through the text and see if you can put more emphasis on actions, rather than conversations. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 02:32, September 12, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

DD-19 "Overseer" labor pool droid

  • Nominated by: AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:56, September 7, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: My first nomination in forever. Liked the connection they forged between an obscure droid from the RPGs and the droid that helped save Darth Vader's life.

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 01:27, September 12, 2019 (UTC)
  2. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 01:03, September 20, 2019 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Uviuy Exen/Legends

(2 ACs/0 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 12:41, September 11, 2019 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:38, September 21, 2019 (UTC)

Object

Anil
  • Category:Fortress worlds is currently a subcategory of Category:Galactic Empire planets, which technically makes the latter category redundant in this article. However, I'm not sure if the term "fortress world" only applies to Imperial planets. If that's not the case, then the categories should be separated.
    • Good point, and no, fortress worlds weren't used just by the Empire. Corrected that category. Imperators II(Talk) 07:44, September 11, 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a consistency in the use of {{C}} for the date addenda in the infobox. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 02:05, September 11, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Antidar Williams

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:29, September 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Back to some more TPM noms

(1 ACs/0 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:02, September 12, 2019 (UTC)

Object

Anil
  • "Upon reaching the blockade, the Radiant VII docked in a hangar on board the Trade Federation flagship Saak'ak." I don't think this entire sentence can be sourced to TPM, especially Saak'ak being a flagship. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:21, September 12, 2019 (UTC)
    • Re-referenced the last part. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:27, September 12, 2019 (UTC)
      • Could you please tell me the page number of that book that says Saak'ak is a flagship? At first, I was about to do the same change myself as a copy-edit, but I couldn't even find the mention of Saak'ak by name in the book. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:39, September 12, 2019 (UTC)
        • Urrgh, you're totally right. Referenced correctly now. This is why I shouldn't edit articles as I'm going to bed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:48, September 12, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Maoi Madakor

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:33, September 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Not sure why she had to hide her Irish accent

(1 ACs/0 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 00:28, September 13, 2019 (UTC)

Object

Anil
  • Could you please reword the first sentence of the second paragraph of the intro? The use of "so" twice looks a little weird to me.
  • Please use {{FFCite}} for referencing.
  • The SWCCG template italicize "Coruscant Limited;" however, you only put it in quotation marks in the article body. I'm not sure which one of them is correct, but they should be consistent. Please revise. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:51, September 12, 2019 (UTC)
    • Italicised to be consistent with other articles. Ayrehead02 (talk) 00:23, September 13, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Sev Buzk

  • Nominated by: OtterSurf (talk) 08:29, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Thought I'd resurrect this one.

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Imp
  • If accurate, the Imperial Army category should be represented in the article and the infobox. Imperators II(Talk) 13:13, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • (Reviewing note) I've removed the P&T image since images should be located below quotes and there was not enough room in that section for the image. Imperators II(Talk) 13:13, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • Please subsection the Bio. Imperators II(Talk) 13:13, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • There's an emerging consensus on the site to provide full publication dates (accurately referenced, of course) for types of media such as comics and TV episodes. Please do so. Imperators II(Talk) 17:08, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
Anil
  • Are those comic images digital? They look a little ragged. If they are not, you should replace them with the ones cropped from a digital copy.
    • As far as I can see, the digital copy has the same quality. OtterSurf (talk) 19:23, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm sure it will look better. Please upload them anyway. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 19:29, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
        • Done, at least for the infobox. Not much difference. OtterSurf (talk) 20:11, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
          • This image is clearly not from a digital copy, it's a scanned image from a physical copy. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:22, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
            • I'm afraid this is all I could find. OtterSurf (talk) 20:28, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
              • Well, the current images in the article are poorly scanned, and have low resolution. I'm afraid this objection will stay here as long as those images are replaced with better ones. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:53, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • The infobox image's filename has capitalized extension, it should be moved per Wookieepedia:Images.
    • I don't have clearance to do so. OtterSurf (talk) 19:26, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • Per the Layout Guide, main infobox images shall be at least 400px in width whenever possible. This problem may resolve itself when you upload its digital counterpart. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 17:54, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
    • Not possible here, sadly. I've made it as wide as I can. OtterSurf (talk) 20:11, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • No available quotes for the second subsection of the Biography? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 18:35, September 20, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • Any reason he's not duck tested as a human per general consensus? Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 14:20, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
    • He just doesn't look Human. He has no hair, pointed ears, more rounded and broad build compared to Manech and others, red eyes... he looks like a Sakiyan or similar. OtterSurf (talk) 15:55, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
      • He only seems to have pointed eyes in one of the three images currently in the article. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 17:10, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
        • Ears, man! Not eyes. OtterSurf (talk) 19:08, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
          • Err, read my previous post as having said ears and not eyes. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 20:15, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
            • Aye. I still think his lack of eyebrows is notable; note how all other Humans in the strip have eyebrows. OtterSurf (talk) 20:17, September 20, 2019 (UTC)


Tey How

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:19, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: After two Republic casualties, now a Federation one

(1 ACs/0 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Objections handled via IRC. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:54, September 20, 2019 (UTC)

Object

Tommy
  • I think those 4 images make it look a bit cluttered. I think you should just keep a couple of them and enlarge them. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 13:54, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
    • I've removed two images, do you really think they should be larger than 250px though? Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:27, September 20, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Leyli

  • Nominated by: OtterSurf (talk) 16:20, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: This particular Lady deserves some recognition.

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Imp
  • Full publication date for the comic, please. Imperators II(Talk) 17:19, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
    • Does the comic itself actually provide the full publication date? If not, you should use a source that does. Imperators II(Talk) 18:00, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
      • Dark Horse site. Is there a special citation? OtterSurf (talk) 18:32, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
        • Here is the category for all the Internet citation templates we have. I'd recommend Marvel, though, since they're the license holder for comics now and also have an entry for the comic. Imperators II(Talk) 18:48, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
          • Brilliant! Thanks. OtterSurf (talk) 19:03, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
            • Please reference accurately, nothing about Leyli herself in the BTS can be sourced to the Marvel site, just the date. Imperators II(Talk) 07:51, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • {{CSWECite}} should be implemented in the corresponding reference. Imperators II(Talk) 17:19, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
    • OtterSurf, if you're going to nominate articles for status, you need to familiarize yourself with our site's policies governing the composition of those articles. Please read what the Manual of Style has to say about the usage of {{CSWECite}}.Imperators II(Talk) 18:00, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • "Shortly after the Battle of Endor" doesn't necessarily correspond to 4 ABY. Please revise the wording. And please note that references should be written as if they were self-contained micro-articles themselves, so phrasing like "this year" or "after this" should be avoided. Imperators II(Talk) 17:19, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • Context for Rogue Squadron, Vader, Palpatine, Luke, Wedge, please. Imperators II(Talk) 17:19, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • Please link Weir to the Empire and the Empire's "defeat" to the Battle of Endor. Imperators II(Talk) 17:19, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
    • All sorted. OtterSurf (talk) 17:44, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
      • I think you should refer to the Empire as the Galactic Empire upon its first mention. Imperators II(Talk) 18:00, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
  • Please split up the first sentence of the article's body. As you're doing that, I suggest moving the specific time frame of a week after Endor to where you mention the Rogues' mission, and maybe just leave something general like "during the Galactic Civil War" for the lead sentence that describes Leyli's station. Imperators II(Talk) 07:51, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • Please name the writer of the comic in the BTS. Imperators II(Talk) 07:51, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • The Marvel link doesn't work. Imperators II(Talk) 07:51, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
    • It only works if I direct it to the main Rogue Leader page, so I've done that. OtterSurf (talk) 08:08, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
      • It also works if you direct it to the specific issue page, but you have failed to follow the instructions on the citation template's documentation page. Imperators II(Talk) 08:49, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
        • I've followed the instructions and it still won't work. OtterSurf (talk) 09:50, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
        • Nevermind, fixed. OtterSurf (talk) 09:55, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
          • Good. Now the backup link should also point to an archived version of the specific issue page. Imperators II(Talk) 09:56, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • The actual title of the Marvel product page should be presented in the template, as opposed to your own description. Imperators II(Talk) 07:51, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
Anil
  • Please follow the instructions in the Layout Guide for the article's sections. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:24, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
    • Uuuurrrgh. Fixed. OtterSurf (talk) 08:15, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
      • Isn't Leyli shown wearing any particular clothing? If so, that would warrant an Equipment section. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 10:58, September 21, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Ahn Krantarium

  • Nominated by: Zed42 (talk) 06:22, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: This is an interesting setting, it's a shame it only appeared for two pages.

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Comments

Conduit worm

  • Nominated by: AV-6R7Crew Pit 21:01, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Aside from the fact that Ayrehead's research on stone mites uncovered some great Bts info on the creation of the conduit worm, this article has long exceeded the CA word cap. It's been spared the EC's wrath, so now it's time to make this a GA.

(1 ACs/0 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Objections handled via IRC. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 00:05, September 22, 2019 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Build A Star Wars Movie Collection